Is Flipper's geometry engine more powerful than Elan?
- Thread starter Luminescent
- Start date
Well this is incredible. From the beginning you've done nothing but ask me to to "prove this" or "prove that". Now you say Factor 5 lied and when I ask you to show me where you even ask me to prove they haven't lied. This is simple, if you claim something you back it up, or at least try before asking someone else to prove you wrong.
How exactly would you have them back them up then? Apparently you don't believe that so they can't back up what they said.
How can we say they aren't? Lets see, we have a quote from Factor 5 to say that Rogue Leader pushes 12-15 million pps at times, and against we have.. err.. nothing. All we have against is your opinion that they can't be trusted, and when I ask you to show why they can't be trusted you can't show why.
My point is we as you said, we have developers here, and many other people, these numbers must have been mentioned over 10 times in this forum and no'one has ever said they were false. Even now nobody says they are false but you, and you have nothing to show that they are false.. just guess work.
Figures?.. what figures are you looking for. Factor 5 have given figures.
Are you reading my comment at all before responding? I was saying that at least I have some sources, while you have nothing at all but guess work and stuborness. Show me this comment on Sega's site, I want to see who said it, and how it was said. My info comes from a interview from a highly skilled group of programmers, not just Factor 5 but also Lucas Arts themselves. Does that 60,000,000 info come from a real programmer or a PR guy?
Also no of course you couldn't believe it pushes 60,000,000 polys per second, because as everyone knows its totally impossible to do that with the PS2. Its very obviously possible to push 12,000,000+ polys on GameCube.
Yeah I read what ERP said.. but you didn't obviously. ERP was not talking about software. Your taking something ERP said and changing it for your own use. If you really need to mis-read ERP's comments to get an opinion on wether or not Rogue Leader's poly counts and lighting is above average then you either haven't played Rogue Leader or your just in denial. I mean really, nobody here is going to agree with you that Rogue Leader's polys counts and lighting is not above an average game. Not even any PS2 or XBox fan-boy, and that's saying something!
The question is why did you interpret my comment like that? Because I did not say you were calling me a liar. I was explaining that when you constently ask people to back everything up its going to come back and bite you when someone then says to you "why don't you back the opposite up instead?". You base too much of your argument on "I don't believe them" and "back that up then". Apparently you don't see any reason for you to back anything up yourself.
No, AFAICS people do not disagree with these polycount numbers from Factor 5. I'd ask you to post some threads with people disagreeing but I fear you'd just ask me to prove that these threads don't excist, since you don't seem to think you carry the burden of proving anything, everyone else must prove you wrong no matter the situation.
Yes, once agiain I did, you didn't. ERP said he was not talking about performance comparisons. So where exactly did ERP say that Flipper is not faster at T&L then Geforce 2?
I didn't say you did, I said you claimed Flipper wasn't faster.
Also, yeah you didn't say that to Tangrineth, but apparently you think so because you've quite obviously argued with me saying Flipper is faster.
No newer doesn't always mean better, but usually it does. What I was saying is you have no reason to think it isn't faster. Flipper is ALLOT newer then Geforce 2, we've seen games with much better T&L work on Flipper, Flipper's raw poly numbers are higher then that of Geforce 2.. and to counter you have.. nothing AFAICS, other then "I don't believe that source" and "back that up".
I can't get them through email. Could you just post the relivant part.
No, that wasn't my point. I was trying to distinguis between something said by programmers, technical people who know what they're talking about, in an interview and what a PR guy puts on the website.
Heh, could you give me a source saying that's the norm
Seriously, if you actually played Rogue Leader you'd change your mind on it being around average polygon counts. Although I don't you'd admit it here.
You also made a claim, that Factor 5's numbers are false, that they lied. What you don't seem to realise is I made a claim and backed it up, then you made a counter claim and its in your court now, back it up. Just because you don't believe my source that does not automatically disqualify it, not until you back up your claim that my source is lying.
Just to lay it out for you. I said Rogue Leader is pushing upwards of 12,000,000 polys per second. You then asked me to back that up, I did so by telling you that the games developers said exacly that. You then claimed that the developers were not to be trusted because they're liars, so now its your turn to back something up.
megadrive0088
Regular
IMO, GF2 GTS isn't even comparable to Flipper since Flipper has 3.12 MB of on-chip 1T-SRAM while GF2 has a tiny cache in comparasion.
You have an uncanny nack for drama Teasy. By your own reasoning why should i prove anything? You aren't bothering to back up anything you are saying so why should i be held to a higher standard? If you want to make random unverifiable statements why can't anyone else? This is just mere digression on your behalf as it doesn't justitify your claims.
If you CAN'T back them up why do you continue to assume they are right? Perhaps you can ask some one here with knowledge.
How can we say God isn't a 26th dimensional cream puff? How do you know that VF4 isn't rendering 60,000,000 polygons/second? If you make a claim teasy you ought to have evidence to back it up. You ought to have evidence before believing in it. If you can't verify it shouldn't assume it is true.
Apparently you don't see the reasoning. I did show you why their word shouldn't be taken at face value without evidence. The same reason why we shouldn't believe in God because he MAY exist.
No one has ever said they were false? Not a single person? Are you sure of this Teasy? I never said they were without a doubt false. Did i say they were false teasy? I remember stating others have opposed those figures.
Anything that can be used to varify the polycount.
And i replied to you with the same asinine reasoning you are using. I can find a source that says Jesus was a alien if i wanted Teasy. I can find a source that says VF4 is rendering 63,000,000 polygons/second. Does that make their claims or your claims true? No. None of them can be substantiated.
How do you know it didn't come from a programmer to a PR guy? It doesn't make a difference Teasy. If you can't substantiate their claims their figures are meaningless.
here are some links:
http://www.outpost.com/product/3259641/
http://learn.senecac.on.ca/~cnikolak/bcs/project/
Sega's original page is down concerning the information. If you search google for combinations of vf4 and 63 million you will find numerous mentions throughout web boards and forums
here is the original link:
http://www.sega.com/games/ps2/post_ps21look.jhtml?article=1look_ vf4
Teasy you are missing the point. The fact is i could toss Factor 5's figures into the realm of hype just as easily as i could Sega's claims PR or not. I don't believe that figure in anyway represents the true polycount of VF4. My reasoning for that is knowing a bit about the hardware and its theoretical capabilities of the PS2. These claims exceed the capabilities of what the PS2 can handle even if it were 100% efficient. My problem with the Factor 5's figure is that neither of us can substantiate it. Should we really take these figures on face value? If so why should anyone who isn't familiar with the PS2 in anyway assume the VF4 claims are bs? By your reasoning we should take them on face value.
No actually i wasn't. He specifically said there isn't an easy way to compare the two as "apples to apples".
He specifically said there was no way to compare the lighting in its complexity as "apples to apples". How can you then say RL features more complex lighting then ANY Geforce 2 game? Because it APPEARS that way to you? I did i no way associate polygon counts and ERPs statements.
Teasy what they think is irrelevant. What ERP stated was you can't easily compare the two (Geforce 2 to Flipper) as far as their T&L complexity is concerned. You were the one who stated RL is superior to ALL games built around or run on Geforce 2 hardware. How can you make that statement? Where is your evidence for this? If i recall correctly i said around the average game. I was specifcally questioning you on how you know RL to feature vastly superior polycounts and lighting to any or all games that run on Geforce 2 hardware.
Honestly i don't give a damn if they agree with me or not. I am asking you HOW you know what the RL polycounts are and why that is so. I have a hard time believing the game is as complex as you say on face value Teasy. There is nothing wrong with being scepticle of figures that lack substance.
You assertion about a personal attack seem to suggest this.
Ok prove there is no God. Prove there is a God. its all the same reasoning. If you make a claim why shouldn't you provide evidence to back yourself up?
andy ou base your entire argument on "i believe". If there is no evidence to substantiate the claim you shouldn't assume it is correct.
Really? So you are telling me if hunt through these forums i won't find one person who disagrees with the framerate, or polycount, or lighting? Are you so sure of this Teasy? I didn't ask you to pove anything. I asked you how do you know SOME one out there doesn't agree with the polycounts with good reason? Does it matter if they agree or not? You were the one who through the random statement out there Teasy not I. To say everyone is like minded on this issue is a bit absurd.
he didn't say the geforce 2 was faster. He also didn't say the Flipper was faster. Thats my point. Its difficult to compare the two. That was what he was suggesting. That on top of the fact the difference in the ways the T&L is implemented in games is different. Why on earth do you assume the Flipper's T&L is faster? How do you know? How can you compare what the Geforce 2 is doing in X game to what the flipper is doing is Y game?Thats essentially the same thing. Either they are equal or one is faster then the other by that reasoning. In said case you make it sound as if i am asserting the Geforce 2 is faster which i am not. I originally disagreed with tangrineth who said the flipper's T&L was a HELL of a lot faster.
I quoted here in my response. Check it out for yourself. If i were responding to lumi would have quoted him.
What we have argued about is your reply to me. I want to know how you know what you are asserting. You claimed the flipper was faster then the geforce 2. How do you know this? How?
Not in this case.
Whoa goofy logic. There is no reason to assume it isn't faster likewise there isn't a reason to assume it is faster. Would we assume the Flipper is faster then the Geforce 3 because it happens to be newer?
What? The Geforce 2's theoretical pixel fillrate was 800 megapixels/second. The FLipper's is 648 megapixels/second. How do you figure the raw poly counts would be larger for flipper then the Geforce 2 if they rendered polygons containing the same number of pixels?
http://nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforce2pro
GeForce2 GTS Pixels Pixels per Second: 800 Million
THen why can't i send it through a messenger? that would be easier.
Heh, could you give me a source saying that's the norm
you could give sourcers that substantiate your claims
. I have played RL. I can tell you that the models have a good number of polygons in them. Can i tell you there are 12,000 or 3,000 or 5,000 in each model by looking at them? No i can't. Can you?
No i stated they have misrepresented facts in the past and that their figures are meaningless by themselves.
No you didn't. You made a claim that no one disagreed with it.
No, i didn't. I stated there is no reason to believe the source without evidence for it.
I did back myself up by saying they are no trust worthy just as you backed yourself up with some one else's claim.
Qroach said:
I agree. What Teasy is arguing is nothing more than his personal opinion. I am not going to see these real figures. I believe ERP and FAF know more then they are sharing. However i doubt they will relate what they know to me.
I have no interest in arguing this point further with Teasy.
DeathKnight
Regular
For Azurik I have a link:
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99899
I don't doubt the figure either since I've played the entire game. There are some pretty jaw dropping moments in the game as far as complexity and draw distance goes.
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99899
I don't doubt the figure either since I've played the entire game. There are some pretty jaw dropping moments in the game as far as complexity and draw distance goes.
Plasmatics
Newcomer
People here take Legion seriously?
I haven't seen this level of stupidity since ArbitraryName. People say things like that a lot on message boards, and I usually think they're exaggerating. . . but this guy can't be serious.
Joke character.
Right?
I haven't seen this level of stupidity since ArbitraryName. People say things like that a lot on message boards, and I usually think they're exaggerating. . . but this guy can't be serious.
Joke character.
Right?
Teasy said:
but how do you know if the gekko didn't take part in the T&L calculation of SW:RL ?
anyway this has nothing scientific. this is only your subjective perception.
this is only your opinion, not a fact..
i'm very curious to know which benchmarks did you run on the GC and on a PC with a geforce ?
very scientific...
don't you want to understand ? what this guy is telling is that the lighting made in hardware by the flipper is more basic compared to the lighting of the geforce 2.
so you can't just simply compare the T&L performance of these two cards, because that the lighting they calculate isn't the same.
it would be like saying that a vespa is better than a tank because it is faster.. you can't compare because these two vehicle doesn't have the same functionnality.
BTW i read the ERP message in this thread and it didn't seem to me he was implying the geforce 2 T&L was superior to flipper.. just that the lighting GF2 did was different.
what does it have to do with this topic ?
"Is Flipper's geometry engine more powerful than Elan?"
i guess we shouldn't create silly topic like that. topic containing the words "more powerful" can only degenerate..
Luminescent
Veteran
By more powerful I meant more capable.
I remember that comment from F5 about Rogue leader. They said that throughout the game RL pushes 12-15 mil. pps with 5-8 layers of effects. The problem is that after that "GC can do everything the Xbox can" nonsense, they kinda lost some of their credibility as far as I'm concerned. They even said that those figures were guesses and that they "didn't have time to count all the polygons, or else we wouldn't have time to complete the game in time for launch". So who knows, those numbers might have been inflated. There's no way to know. Like it was mentionned in another thread, they had a part in creating the GC hardware so there's a reason for them to speak highly of it.
Now, this has nothing to do with their accomplishements when it comes to RL and their new game. RL is still one of the best looking game on the GC, some would argue still the best looking, and I can't wait to see their new stuff. I have a feeling it will outdo anything we've seen so far on the platform. You just have to learn to seperate that from BS PR statements.
Now, this has nothing to do with their accomplishements when it comes to RL and their new game. RL is still one of the best looking game on the GC, some would argue still the best looking, and I can't wait to see their new stuff. I have a feeling it will outdo anything we've seen so far on the platform. You just have to learn to seperate that from BS PR statements.
I actually find it intriguing as to why factor5 has such a reputation from some members on these forums. What bullshit have they said? They only controversial claims they've made in the past were that flipper had a better pixel shader (TEV) than nv2a, and had neater vertex indexing methods.
And guess what, Julian was pretty damn right with his opinions, back then it was controversial but now its pretty common knowledge that TEV can hold up to nv2a's combiner for most situations, and that the vertex indexing on gamecube is pretty unique, well from what i've heard, it was a request for the openGL forum from developers but never implemented until flipper (not entirely sure).
The rest was mostly about sound, and while they've made a number of spins about their 5.1 sound, technicly, they were still holding up to their claim, though misleading on some points, but heck, even dolby played the game.
12-15M polys for RL is believable anyway, just need to play ison corridor or the death star battle and bam, if you think there's not enough objects on screen then you're crazzeeeee (well there's no such things as too much )
And guess what, Julian was pretty damn right with his opinions, back then it was controversial but now its pretty common knowledge that TEV can hold up to nv2a's combiner for most situations, and that the vertex indexing on gamecube is pretty unique, well from what i've heard, it was a request for the openGL forum from developers but never implemented until flipper (not entirely sure).
The rest was mostly about sound, and while they've made a number of spins about their 5.1 sound, technicly, they were still holding up to their claim, though misleading on some points, but heck, even dolby played the game.
12-15M polys for RL is believable anyway, just need to play ison corridor or the death star battle and bam, if you think there's not enough objects on screen then you're crazzeeeee (well there's no such things as too much
)That was when they had xbox alpha or beta kits that didnt have nv2a in it.
Its useless to take very old quotes out of context and put them back in an argument about current knowledge.
The last comments factor5 did about gamecube's graphical capabilities were with its pixel shaders and vertex indexing, nothing else.
To be specific, Flipper allows indexing per vertex component, while NV2a indexes per vertex.
This potentially allows for smaller vertices. We use this in our app as well, savings aren't huge, but it's just one of the small things that's nice to have.
If I am not mistaken, NV2a also requires memory alignment on per vertex basis, which can further increase their size (maybe ERP can clarify more), but with 64mb available, I know I wouldn't be too upset over it.
On the flipside, Flipper doesn't have post transform cache, which NV2a uses with indexing to speed up vertex processing. This is also something that comes rather handy, so I wouldn't necesserily say one feature is always better then the other.
It entirely depends whether you end up memory or speed limited which one you'd like to have more IMO - which in turn usually means you always want the one you don't have
.Plasmatics
Newcomer
Since no one else wanted to find them:
Factor 5 PGC Interview
IGN's Interviews Includes a number of Factor 5 interviews as well as IBM talking about Gekko, ATI talking about Flipper and even talk about DPLII. Too many to individually link.
Factor 5 PGC Interview
IGN's Interviews Includes a number of Factor 5 interviews as well as IBM talking about Gekko, ATI talking about Flipper and even talk about DPLII. Too many to individually link.
Similar threads
- Locked
